Freedom of speech and its limits: comparing human rights law and Islamic law
We are often told that modern society has, “freedom of speech.”
Freedom of speech is a human right under article 19 of the human rights act and international law as formulated by the UN.
Some countries have freedom of speech as part of constitutional law.
Freedom of speech, free speech and freedom of expression are often used interchangeably.
The term covers activities that involve seeking, imparting knowledge or finding out knowledge regardless of the method used.
When we hear that we have freedom of speech we understand that we can say whatever we want.
Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)—Article 19 states that "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."[1]
This was later amended In ICCPR which states that this right may be restricted by certain responsibilities and limitations to respect the rights and reputation of others as well as to protect society and its morals and ethics.
Therefore, freedom of speech was a good intentioned method of protecting peoples rights to their opinions and speech, while protecting others from slander.
Some of the common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech are speech that relates to are:
libel,
slander,
obscenity,
pornography,
sedition,
incitement to hate and fighting,
fighting language and encouraging fighting,
classified information,
violation of copyright,
trade secrets,
labelling of food,
non disclosure agreements,
the right to privacy,
the right to dignity,
the right to be forgotten,
public security
perjury.
The harm principle was proposed in the Liberty by John Stuart Mill and this holds that people will not be restricted unless their freedom infringes on the rights of others.
The offense principle is another reason for restricting total expression because certain phrases and means of speech could offend people and society, or there may be a better way to say things.
Freedom of speech can be traced back to 1689 when the bill of rights was written to grant people freedom of speech and it is still in effect.
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) argued that freedom of speech should not be feared and it usually leads to advances in science, politics, and knowledge. He argued that the truth would usually become recognised from the falsehood.
However, many people are complaining that there are so many normal things that we cannot say that they argue that true freedom of speech does not exist.
According to political correctness, and woke ideas, there are some things we should not say because there is a fear we may offend people or that it would go against the ethics of society.
Searching for correct words can be difficult at times.
Sometimes such attempts to find the correct way of referring to something can be pedantic.
For example, when we were told at university that we could not refer to a holiday as “reading week,” rather “study week.”
The principal, apparently, thought that students would not like to call it only reading week when they paid so much money.
I wonder if he actually asked students before deciding that.
Personally I never really considered such things.
In more recent times, we have been told that airlines will no longer be referring to people as “ladies and gentlemen,”
This is because transvestites and others who feel confused over issues of gender might be offended.
The problem is there are probably many people who may be offended by not being acknowledged as men and women.
I think many women, from what I read, were quite uncomfortable and not happy about politicians having open discussions about female private parts and whether men can have them or not.
Some politicians were trying to support rights of transgender people without acknowledging others such as women, various religious groups and others who may be offended by such arguments.
The problem is that women and whether they were offended or not, or others having to listen to such debates and how they felt about that, were not considered.
In fact, it is probably impossible to please everyone in society. There usually are people who will be offended when others are given preference.
Another problem is when political correctness attempts to override science and what is well known, which makes things seem to be becoming kind of crazy.
Therefore, this issue with political correctness does not work or represent all areas of society and there is not a true complete freedom of speech for all people.
Freedom of speech should at least allow debates and people to put forward their opinion that they do not agree and do not accept such ideas.
When certain areas are silenced or ostracised because they do not agree with certain ideas is this really the freedom of speech that we are told about?
For example, Christians, Muslims, Jews and others who do not agree with certain secular ideas and who do not sanction transvestites and homosexuals should also be considered within freedom of speech.
Of course, I am not advertising hate speech or violence but just the innocent disagreement of certain ideas.
I mean, people are very open when they say they do not like immigrants or Muslims.
It of course, is not nice to deliberately upset or offend people but simply disagreeing with someone’s way of life should not be seen as a major threat.
People being bullied, or “shamed,” into accepting certain ideas that are not part of the status quo of the day are not being included in freedom of speech, belief and expression.
For example, whereas most countries do not force people to take the vaccination against Covid, there are so many restrictions if a person does not that they are basically being forced.
People being asked to leave their jobs because of not taking the vaccine is not allowing freedom of speech or lifestyle.
Rather, it is challenging their human rights.
Name calling, as in having un vaccinated people called “anti vacciners,” being shamed, loosing work and being faced with different types of subtle bullying and coercing are all examples of how people are subtlety under control and not able to have entire freedom of speech or action.
When people are forced to verbally agree to ideas that they do not accept, this is not equality or freedom of speech.
Neither is making public interviews to try and show people not agreeing (with vaccines, transvestites, homosexuals or there being more than two genders) – when they have religious reasons why not.
We are not supposed to say what certain people do not want to hear or put forward anything that may threaten the status quo.
Society is not really equal when some types of people are able to speak openly and against other types.
For example, atheists can belittle religious believers who do not accept Darwin’s theory.
They call them “creationists” and speak in derogatory ways about them denying science and being backward.
It is also acceptable to call Muslims terrorists, that Muslim women are oppressed and that foreigners -especially Muslim ones – should go back to their countries.
It is unacceptable for a white person to say anything that might offend black people, however, there are many white people who might be offended by comments by black people or being called racist without any reason or evidence.
Therefore, it is seems that the claim of freedom of speech is not applied equally amongst all members of society.
When Muslims were offended by cartoons of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, and things written in books we were all told it is “freedom of speech,”
If a Muslim says something about another religion or no religion, it is called “hate speech.”
Even worse it can be seen as a call to terrorism.
But we were told that we should not say things that offend people right?
That is why we can’t call people ladies and gentlemen, isn’t it so?
It is strange that people who speak about Islam, publish books called things such as God is not Great,” and spread mis information about Islam are protected by “freedom of speech, ” but Muslims were not supposed to disagree or react.
If Muslims publish books they are seen as fundamentalists.
It again shows that freedom of speech is not applied equally, but rather to some people in society.
In fact, it just seems that the great Western countries are in agreement with most things between each other about who can say what, when, and how.
Anyway, after reading different books by people from different backgrounds it does seem that there is an agreement that freedom of speech, in reality, does not exist.
At least, not totally. It is limited as mentioned.
This is what I read by atheists, agnostics, religious people and others.
It seems that all people feel somehow restricted by what they can say and even feel silenced.
Maybe this is not always bad. A lot of people do not have good things to say. There is too much slandering and insulting in general.
However, would it not be fairer to allow people to have a true opinion, not agree with the status quo but be discreet and polite to others?
In fact, people putting forward their disagreements and reasons may actually lead to useful debates and considerations that help others.
Maybe then, it is not a good thing to silence people who will still keep their opinions but instead encourage people to express themselves in a respectable manner and try to mot offend people by being insulting.
For example, people putting forward an opinion why they do not agree with something could then give others the opportunity to answer. This might bring understanding.
Or otherwise, they are at least heard.
Islam and Freedom of Speech:
In Islam, there is freedom of speech within limits that is in some ways similar, and some ways not, to the general understanding and application of freedom of speech.
However, there is a principal that a Muslim should either speak good or keep silent.
Another hadith tells us that a persons tongue is either for or against them.
Also that most of people’s sins come from the things they say more than what they do.
For example, it is not acceptable to say things that go against the religion, that insult Allah or the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him or to insult each other.
Therefore speech in Islam is usually referred to as either good and upright speech, bad speech and permissible speech.
In reality, speech, as are all actions in Islam, is considered usually by a persons intention.
When someone aims for something good by their speech, it is considered good speech.
Good speech is all speech that leads to good actions and consequences such as guidance, saving a life, making peace between people, stopping a bad action and making others feel good and happy.
Bad speech usually leads to bad actions and harm, disrespecting others, misleading or misguiding them, hurting others or ruining their reputations. This is not allowed.
Permissible speech is general speech that is not forbidden but does not benefit or have a good intention behind it.
Restrictions on freedom of speech aim to protect people: Muslims and non Muslims included.
For example, it is not allowed to insult so called gods of other religions, since they may retaliate by insulting Islam.
Therefore, all religions are potentially protected by Islam – when implemented properly.
For similar reasons, it is not acceptable to insult another persons parents since they will most likely retaliate by insulting their parents too.
Therefore, freedom of speech is restricted when it leads to fighting.
It is also restricted to prevent killing as well.
We are told that a person who says one letter (like “K,” for kill...) that leads to ordering or allowing a person to be killed takes responsibility for their death and commits a major sin.
This includes speaking with their eyes or hand movements.
Whereas people can complain under civil law against slander, when they are accused of something that is not true, Islam does not allow slander even when it is found to be true.
Whereas slander can be excused when a person does not hide their behaviour from people, it is not allowed to expose sins or behaviours that people do secretly in their home or privately and that they do not want others to know about.
It is not allowed to accuse women of adultery or indecency (or men, but for women there is a stronger emphasis).
If they do without evidence and without four upright witnesses they will be punished and never have their testimony accepted for the rest of their life.
Therefore, the protection of people’s reputation is something important in Islam.
Backbiting, which is defined as speaking about something that might be true in a person but they do not want others to know about is a big sin and not allowed in Islamic law.
Ruling on people speaking about Islam or asking about it:
There is freedom of belief and religion in Islam, and so no one is forced to accept or believe if they do not want.
However, once a person confesses belief, they are supposed to avoid speaking about Islam in a degrading way.
In fact, even joking can lead to being out of the religion.
A hadith says that if a person is joking and he says, “if that is true, then I am a Jew,” then he is a Jew from that moment on.
When it comes to others, calling someone a disbeliever will mean that either the person is really a non believer or the speaker becomes a non believer.
When a person calls a person a hypocrite they may be asked to bring evidence that they really were on judgment day.
Therefore, joking in relationship to religion or other peoples reputation is not taken lightly and can have dire consequences.
This is, however, to keep society in order.
This should lead to protecting the religion and also peoples rights to dignity and respect.
However, if someone does commit one of these crimes the requirement for repentance is quite simple.
They may need to re-enter Islam if they had left if by what they said.
Then they may have to regret what they did or said and make a strong intention not to-do it again.
When it comes to other peoples rights and honour they may have to apologise to the person or people they offended or insulted or spoke badly about and seek their forgiveness with the intention to not go back to that again.
Therefore, in Islam there are some restrictions on freedom of speech, which are:
Blaspheme
Defamatory speech
Slander
Backbiting
Lying, fraud and false speech
Insulting speech
Obscenity
Bad language
Insults
Cursing
Spreading false information
Hate speech
Degrading speech
Speaking about things that does not concern one
Speaking about what one has no knowledge
Misleading information
One thing that Islam does accept more than the usual understanding of freedom of speech is the freedom to express issues and disagreements, especially when a person is seeking the truth.
In fact, it is encouraged, even obligatory for any person who is troubled by a religious issue to find a knowledgeable person to ask about it.
The aim of this is to reach the truth through the intellect and perhaps receive guidance.
In fact, the Quran is full of arguments that were put forward by the pagan Arabs at the time, as well as Jews and Christians.
The Quran replies to the queries put forward and teaches the reader how to reply to such issues that were often raised about belief and Islam.
Therefore, healthy debate is encouraged and there is no need to silence people who are looking for answers to important questions.
Non Muslims, therefore, have the right to freedom of speech and to raise issues that may trouble them or that they do not understand without any fear of breaking a moral code.
However, people should be respectful in general, although even if a person is not they are still entitled to freedom of speech to find out the truth of religious issues so that they may be guided to the correct belief.
Muslims also not only should, but have to ask about religious issues that may trouble them.
An early example of this was when a young man came to the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him and said that he wanted to commit adultery.
Many of the people around were shocked and angered by him and wanted to answer him strongly, however, the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him did not allow them to admonish him.
He simply acknowledged what he had said and asked him, “would you like that for your mother?” the man replied, “no,” then he asked if he would like that for his sister, the man replied “no,” and not for his daughter either.
So he replied that just as he would not like such a thing for his mother, sister or daughter other people do not like such things for their mothers, sisters or daughters, for this reason you should not do it out if respect to them. He then prayed for him.
The man said that after that day adultery was the most hated thing to him.
Therefore, the result of allowing freedom of expression and answering the issue in a rational and logical manner had a positive outcome and changed the mind of the enquirer.
Probably if he was silenced and told he was bad he would probably have sneaked off to commit adultery, perhaps many times. He would never have changed.
This is why addressing issues and answering people is far better than silencing them.
Since there is no true hierarchy of people in Islam and the aim of discussion is for truth, average people are able to challenge those of higher authority when they see they are in error.
An example of this is when Umar the companion of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him had inherited the Caliphate.
He thought that women were asking for two much money when they were getting married so restricted the amount that men should give their wives.
A woman stood up from the crowd and recited a verse of the Quran and told him he does not have the right to do that – using the Quran as an evidence.
Umar heard her and simply replied “The woman is right and Umar is wrong.”
As one female teacher told us that in our times there is no Umar and no woman to stand up and correct him.
What she meant was that people don’t often accept to be corrected publicly now and there is no one who really dares to try.
However, this is evidence of how in the beginning Islam had a very open and authentic practice of freedom of speech.
In summary then, there is freedom of speech in Islam as there is in human rights and international law and they are similar in many ways.
Islam may be more restrictive at times on speech, but at the same time attempts to protect society and individuals more than does the UN freedom of speech.
One of the main difference seems to be that Islam makes more attempts to protect religious views and belief and others peoples reputations so may be more restrictive in this regard.
Human rights freedom of speech gives more freedom and protection to secularists, atheists and groups such as homosexuals and transvestites often at the expense of others.
Therefore, these liberties may ride over the freedom of expression of others at times.
Whereas the now standard version of freedom of speech often attempts to silence people and even to subtly force them, using indirect social methods, Islam is far more open and straight forward about what can or cannot be said without coercion.
The standard model of freedom of speech does not allow much room for debates surrounding homosexuals, transvestites, and certain issues unless such debates are in agreement with their agenda.
Islam, however, encourages healthy debates and answering issues to reach the truth.
Islam then, seems to be fairer and more tolerant of the rights of others in its distribution of freedom of expression and speech especially for religious followers.
https://www.teacheron.com/tutor-profile/4zpB
Comments
Post a Comment